Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is free and opens no browser session, and it works for any web app including ones outside Cotlet's catalog. It does not describe the shape or size of the returned guidance, which would help an agent plan.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is a dense comma-separated inventory of returned content, but the following three short sentences (when to call, generality, cost) are front-loaded and earn their place. No filler or repetition; the only cost is that the long first sentence is harder to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-optional-parameter knowledge tool with no output schema, the description covers what content comes back, when to call it, its generality, and its cost/session behavior. The main gap is that it doesn't hint at the returned structure or how long the guidance is, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both optional parameters including the Hipcamp default. The description only alludes to them via "in an app" and "what the user wants done," adding no format, slug conventions, or guidance on omitting them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource concretely: a guide covering which browser to use, the sign-in link, the step-by-step method, screens/menus/actions, notes, and app-specific tools. That is far more specific than the title, and it implicitly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the cotlet_browser_* action tools. It never states the verb directly (retrieve/read a guide), so an agent must infer that this returns documentation rather than performing a browser action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear trigger: "Call it before the first browser step in an app," plus the fallback rule that apps outside the catalog still get the general method. It does not name sibling alternatives such as cotlet_apps for discovering apps, so routing between this and the catalog listing tool is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.